DETAILED ACTION
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it refers to the purported merits of the invention. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because each brief description of individual figures should begin on separate lines and because there is no header separating the brief from detailed descriptions. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Stiles (U.S. D792,987).
Stiles discloses a paver panel having a cellular structure (Figure 3, for example) having cells with coupled edges and support points (“X” portions within the circular cells, for example) fitted in an internal profile of the cells. The relative dimensions are as claimed (Figure 1, for example).
Stiles meets the recitations of claim 10 (Figure 3, for example).
Regarding claim 11, the panel is monolithic.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 2, 6-8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stiles, as applied above.
Regarding claim 2, dimensions are left to one skilled in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used any dimensions suitable for its intended purpose. Dimensions are not a patentably distinguishing feature in this instance.
Regarding claims 6-8 and 10, the claimed shapes are known in cellular structures. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used any known shape(s) and/or arrangement(s) in order to fit a particular area, suit a particular application or obtain a desired aesthetic. Note that the present specification equates the various shapes and arrangements, as these are optional species.
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stiles as applied above, and further in view of Burgio (U.S. D889,694 ).
Stiles does not teach discs attached to the joining rib centers; however, this is well known. For example, Burgio teaches a support (title) configured as a disc (Figure 1, for example). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the discs of Burgio with the panels of Stiles in order to obtain support and proper spacing between adjacent panels, as is the purpose of such paver support discs.
Regarding claim 5, as with claims 6-8 and 10, above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used any known shape(s) and/or arrangement(s) in order to fit a particular area, suit a particular application or obtain a desired aesthetic.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The additional references teach panels and/or connections therefor.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GARY S HARTMANN whose telephone number is (571)272-6989. The examiner can normally be reached 11-7:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Christopher Sebesta can be reached at 571 272-0547. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
GARY S. HARTMANN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3671
/GARY S HARTMANN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3671